Supreme Court hears religious tolerance case of postal worker who didn't work Sundays

[Gordy327]

That is a stretch and in any event it doesn’t have any relevance to laws restricting trade on Sunday

Who said anything about trade? You seem to disagree with the notion the Constitution doesn't say anything about equality.

The founders delegated nothing to judicial review. That was a power usurped the current scotus is fixing this though

I see you are not familiar with Marbury v. Madison (1803).

not one that will satisfy greedy atheists so there’s no point in bothering with you

An ad hom attack is an obvious indicator you cannot provide any rational reason.

. That’s the purpose of advocating change in policy

So you agree an employer (such as the Federal government) can set policy. Good.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The founders delegated nothing to judicial review.

Judicial review is literally the result of how the Founders structured the judicial branch

That was a power usurped the current scotus is fixing this though

This is even stupider, because the only consistent thing the Robert's court has done is expand the power of the federal judiciary.

I'm guessing you haven't actually bothered reading or attempting any understanding of the court's rulings thus far, which makes sense as your only interest seems to be finding things to troll about.

 

[nullus]

The constitution says none of these things

Well, at least for you, but it does for those with a broader understanding of it and its purpose.

Blue laws were a routine part of American life until very recently. If the framers of the constitution cared about it they would ban them in the constitution

So were many other laws which ultimately were turned out to be unconstitutional. Perhaps you should broaden your perspective to be more in line with the times we live in.
Wishing to live in the past can only be a wish and lead to disappointment. Time only goes forward.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I disagree.

Business operational conditions are not stagnant and change over time. Businesses adapt to changing conditions, and unless there were a contract that specifically says something to the effect "the working conditions are guaranteed never to change over you entire career of the organization", then employers and employees adapt.

IIRC - at least around here - the Post Office Sunday deliveries are taking on a lot of "last mile" online retailer deliveries, such as Amazon. Conditions have changed in that online retailers exploded and a lot of their deliveries are through FedEx, UPS, etc. which was causing the USPS a loss of revenue. To adapt they entered agreements with some of the shipping companies to be paid for last mile deliveries improving the bottom line of the USPS.
.
.
.
Now with that said, one would also have to look at the location and size of the Postal Office where the worker is located. If they have plenty of staff and the individuals religious request could have been easily accommodated without undue hardship and the Supervisor was just being a dick, than the Supervisor was wrong. On the other hand if it was a rural post office and the amount of staff was limited and would have required (a) additional expense of hiring someone else, and/or (b) placed an undue burden on coworkers, then the refusal could be justified.

WW

Rural or not, adding new work days/shifts would likely require adding more workers willing to work those days/shifts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Rural or not, adding new work days/shifts would likely require adding more workers willing to work those days/shifts.

My understanding is that the USPS has been contracting for Amazon deliveries since 2013, so this isn't something new. So over the course of 10 years, they likely have the staff.

WW

 

[ttwtt78640]

My understanding is that the USPS has been contracting for Amazon deliveries since 2013, so this isn't something new. So over the course of 10 years, they likely have the staff.

WW

That appears to be limited to (mostly?) large metro area post office locations. IIRC, he voluntarily changed his USPS work location (at least once) to avoid being asked to work Sundays.

In 2013, the USPS began a test program delivering packages for Amazon.com on Sundays. The program originally started in Los Angeles and New York City but quickly moved to all large metro areas across the U.S. As e‑commerce continued to grow, the USPS expanded the program to include all packages.

USPS Sunday Delivery

Information about USPS Sunday Delivery. In some cases the USPS delivers on Sundays, see if your mailpiece qualifies.

www.stamps.com

 

[bomberfox]

The most privileged religion in America aping laws against religious discrimination

 

[StillBallin75]

Religious people aren't ****ing special. If the atheist is working Sundays then his ass should be too, unless it was somehow written into an employment contract that stipulated he wouldn't work Sundays.

He's also free to ****ing quit.

If the rest of us could just ****ing make up whatever rules we want about how working certain days offended our fake deity.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Well ideally the post office shouldn’t have anyone working on Sunday period. It should be like Chick Fil-A

Or the post office could make working Sunday totally voluntary but paid at double time. They’d have no issues staffing Sunday then

The post office could do many things. What their employees shouldn't be made to do is pull the weight of someone else and cover his undesirable shifts.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The founders delegated nothing to judicial review.

I wonder what "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" is supposed to mean, then.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I wonder what "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" is supposed to mean, then.

The power to decide individual cases within the laws passed by congress and not overturn laws.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The power to decide individual cases within the laws passed by congress and not overturn laws.

Is the Constitution not a law passed by Congress?

 

[PoliSciPulse]

I disagree.

Business operational conditions are not stagnant and change over time. Businesses adapt to changing conditions, and unless there were a contract that specifically says something to the effect "the working conditions are guaranteed never to change over you entire career of the organization", then employers and employees adapt.

IIRC - at least around here - the Post Office Sunday deliveries are taking on a lot of "last mile" online retailer deliveries, such as Amazon. Conditions have changed in that online retailers exploded and a lot of their deliveries are through FedEx, UPS, etc. which was causing the USPS a loss of revenue. To adapt they entered agreements with some of the shipping companies to be paid for last mile deliveries improving the bottom line of the USPS.
.
.
.
Now with that said, one would also have to look at the location and size of the Postal Office where the worker is located. If they have plenty of staff and the individuals religious request could have been easily accommodated without undue hardship and the Supervisor was just being a dick, than the Supervisor was wrong. On the other hand if it was a rural post office and the amount of staff was limited and would have required (a) additional expense of hiring someone else, and/or (b) placed an undue burden on coworkers, then the refusal could be justified.

WW

This right there is the definition of "reasonable accommodation." In my opinion, a reasonable accommodation would allow the worker to stay home from 9 AM until after dinner (7?) on Sunday, no problem, provided he still works at night that day (and provided they can get someone to cover the 9-7 shift). However, if it would break the budget as you alluded to, then the request no longer fits the "reasonable" criteria. It would be like me saying that I am limited in mobility, so therefore you must install a personal gym for me to use whenever my arthritis acts up.

 

[weaver2]

Religious people aren't ****ing special. If the atheist is working Sundays then his ass should be too, unless it was somehow written into an employment contract that stipulated he wouldn't work Sundays. He's also free to ****ing quit.
If the rest of us could just ****ing make up whatever rules we want about how working certain days offended our fake deity.

Minus a few ****s I feel the same way.
There are hundreds of denominations in the US alone. Most tend to be off shoots of evangelical churches and conservatives mosques very few are sects that have left the mainstream denominations. Each has it own rules, rituals and biblical or koranic interpretations they are supposed to abide by. How many they are allowed to bring into the work place will be determined by the SC decision first on whether the law requires co-workers not have unreasonable demands put on them by having to accommodate some religious demand and then the SC can make a judgement on what is "reasonable accommodation".

This court has shown itself to be very sympathetic to the demands of the religious right.

 

[Proudmoore]

So if they rule in favor, that means his demand to go to church will override other people's demand to spend the day with their families and friends? What happens when too many workers say they go to church on Sundays?

 

[Maidenrules29]

Not everyone is religious. Just like there is "freedom of religion" there is freedom against religion. "Blue laws" enacted to satiate the "hold the sabbath holy" crowd descriminate against non-religious folk. Business owners and other employers should not have to cowtow to employees demanding certain days off due to their religion. If there is to be a set schedule or certain days off promised, then that should be in the employment contract or other new-hire paperwork. In the case of this postal worker, unless it was specifically stated that Sundays would never be required and , the employee must have known that working on Sundays could, at some point be mandatory.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Well ideally the post office shouldn’t have anyone working on Sunday period

Why?

 

[Maidenrules29]

"Religious practices like no labor on Sunday Can be imposed as long as they are imposed equally on everyone"

OK @EMNofSeattle..Impose religious practices equally on everyone? LMFAO

 

[mike2810]

"Religious practices like no labor on Sunday Can be imposed as long as they are imposed equally on everyone"

OK @EMNofSeattle..Impose religious practices equally on everyone? LMFAO

It is the practice of no labor on Sunday. Does not matter if you have a religious belief or not. The "practice" would apply to everyone.
That is no labor of Sunday

 

[Maidenrules29]

It is the practice of no labor on Sunday. Does not matter if you have a religious belief or not. The "practice" would apply to everyone.
That is no labor of Sunday

But why Sunday? Why not Thursday? Doing it on Sunday would imply religious connotations. Its moot anyway. That would never happen here.

 

[mike2810]

But why Sunday? Why not Thursday? Doing it on Sunday would imply religious connotations. Its moot anyway. That would never happen here.

Depends on the religion, doesn't it?
This is an example:
If a company has to be open 7 days a week, the company could make it clear at the start that an employee may be expected to work weekends. At a minimum, employees must work 5 days a week (40 hours). A good supervisor would try and accommodate a workers wishes to not work on a particular day. If the schedule is not acceptable to the employee, then it is time to find another job.

There were many times during my career I worked weekends, nights, over holidays (Christmas). There was no guarantee I could get Christmas off. Family learned to adapt to the fact I may not be home every Christmas.

If one knows they have to work weekends for the job, then it should not be a problem.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

But why Sunday? Why not Thursday? Doing it on Sunday would imply religious connotations. Its moot anyway. That would never happen here.

Because America is a culturally Christian country and Sunday is the day of rest.

Blue laws have long been upheld by the courts as not being imposition of religious practice. Forcing someone to go to church on Sunday would be unconstitutional mandating no labor on Sunday is perfectly constitutional.

Of course the idea of overturning blue laws was explicitly religious, studies have shown church attendance crashes when workers cannot get Sunday off, so that’s why the left fought so hard to repeal blue laws

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Not everyone is religious. Just like there is "freedom of religion" there is freedom against religion. "Blue laws" enacted to satiate the "hold the sabbath holy" crowd descriminate against non-religious folk. Business owners and other employers should not have to cowtow to employees demanding certain days off due to their religion. If there is to be a set schedule or certain days off promised, then that should be in the employment contract or other new-hire paperwork. In the case of this postal worker, unless it was specifically stated that Sundays would never be required and , the employee must have known that working on Sundays could, at some point be mandatory.

You don’t have the right to impose the atheist religion on Christians.

The Supreme Court will hopefully rule against the post office then the ball can get rolling on bringing back blue laws in force

 

[weaver2]

You don’t have the right to impose the atheist religion on Christians.

And some brand of Christianity (among the hundreds of denominations) does not have the right to impose its religion on atheists.

The Supreme Court will hopefully rule against the post office then the ball can get rolling on bringing back blue laws in force

How will the Supreme Court establish whose religious beliefs it will use to bring back an era of blue laws? Will they just pick what they are comfortable with, what they believe? Is that fair?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

And some brand of Christianity (among the hundreds of denominations) does not have the right to impose its religion on atheists.

You have no right as an athiest to engage in any particular trade on Sunday

How will the Supreme Court establish whose religious beliefs it will use to bring back an era of blue laws? Will they just pick what they are comfortable with, what they believe? Is that fair?

Not complicated, Sunday is the traditional day